PhishCo runs a number of farms in the arid province of Nufa, depending

PhishCo runs a number of farms in the arid province of Nufa, depending largely on the irrigation. Now, as a part of a plan to efficiently increase the farms' total production, it plans to drill down to an aquifer containing warm, slightly salty water that will be used to raise fish in ponds. The water from the ponds will later be used to supplement piped-in irrigation water for PhishCo's vegetable fields, and the ponds and accompanying vegetation should help reduce the heat in the area of the farms.

Plan : To efficiently increase the farms' total production.
How? To drill down to an aquifer containing warm, slightly salty water that will be used to raise fish in ponds.

Which of the following would, if true, most strongly suggest that the plan, if implemented, would increase the overall efficiency of PhishCo's farms?

(A) Most of the vegetation to be placed around the ponds is native to Nufa.
As per my understanding, Native vegetation is used to survive in the arid conditions of the province of Nufa. So, there chances of thriving in such arid conditions is more as compared to the non-native vegetation which may or may not thrive. SO, it slightly strengthens. It will contribute to the productivity of the farms.
But what will be the role of pond and the fishes in those ponds then. If Just by planting native vegetation would contribute to productivity. SO, it does not support the plan. We are looking for an option that will support the plan's prospective of increasing the productivity of farm efficiently and effectively. So, incorrect.

(B) Fish raised on PhishCo's farms are likely to be saleable in the nearest urban areas.
This will increase the Farms PROFITABILITY not the FARM's PRODUCTIVITY. so, INCORRECT.

(C) Organic waste from fish in the pond water will help to fertilize fields where it is used for irrigation.
PONDS + FISH -- there two helpful indirect beneficial usages : (Without any extra COST)
1. Fertilization of the fields by the organic waste of fish present in the irrigation water.
2. Usage of the salty water for irrigation.
So, this options supports that both the EFFICIENCY and PRODUCTIVITY of the farm will increase. so CORRECT.

(D) The govt of Nufa will help to arrange loan financing to partially cover the costs of drilling.
Governments help in loan procurement is a good step, it will reduce some of the efforts/work of the PhishCo. But it does not help in increase of farm's PRODUCTIVITY or EFFICIENCY.

(E) Ponds will be located on low-lying land now partially occupied by grain crops.
This suggests that creation of ponds will actually decrease productivity as they will occupy the productive land used by GRAIN CROPS, which contribute to the productivity of the farms.

chetan2u GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

PhishCo runs a number of farms in the arid province of Nufa, depending largely on the irrigation. Now, as a part of a plan to efficiently increase the farms' total production, it plans to drill down to an aquifer containing warm, slightly salty water that will be used to raise fish in ponds. The water from the ponds will later be used to supplement piped-in irrigation water for PhishCo's vegetable fields, and the ponds and accompanying vegetation should help reduce the heat in the area of the farms.

Which of the following would, if true, most strongly suggest that the plan, if implemented, would increase the overall efficiency of PhishCo's farms?

A) Most of the vegetation to be placed around the ponds is native to Nufa.

B) Fish raised on PhishCo's farms are likely to be saleable in the nearest urban areas.

C) Organic waste from fish in the pond water will help to fertilize fields where it is used for irrigation.

D) The govt of Nufa will help to arrange loan financing to partially cover the costs of drilling.

E) Ponds will be located on low-lying land now partially occupied by grain crops.



I got to OA with completely different approach and would like to validate my reasoning.

This is strengthen question and I need to strengthen that goal of plan will succeed. What is the goal?
To efficiently increase the farms' total production. Production depends on irrigation.

I do not see any alternative approach here in the argument.



Lots of farms in nearby province of Nufa are run by Phishco and these farms are hugely dependent on irrigation.



To achieve a goal of efficiently increasing farms' total production, Phishco proposed to drill down to an aquifer containing warm, slightly salty water that will be used to raise fish in ponds.




I can cross out the part which is not relevant to my goal here. This sentence shows how my goal will be achieved.



Location of ponds is immaterial to the execution of plan


No , we are not trying to earn profit be selling fish. We need to strengthen final goal of
improving farm efficiency so that more vegetation can be grown.


Yes , this links execution of plan (Organic waste from fish in the pond water) to my goal (better fertilizer which can be
used for irrigation and more output.)


Irrelevant to my final goal.


Irrelevant to my final goal.

The argument is that by implementing, new schemes, there would be some advantages.


Let us review the options

A) Irrelevant. This option is out.

B) This supports new scheme, but it does not tel what will be the effect on current crop growth. Hold for the moment.

C) This supports. So this will benefit existing agriculture. This option is better than option B.

D) Irrelevant. This option is out.

E) This actually opposes. This means some of the existing fields will be used in making Ponds. Therefore yield will be reduced. Out.

C is the best option. (B only highlights benefit of new scheme, but remains silent on its impact on agriculture)

Yes, it is correct.

Question stem: Which of the following would, if true, most strongly suggest that the plan, if implemented, would increase the overall efficiency of PhishCo's farms?

Note that the whole argument is about "efficiency and productivity" of the farm. Nothing about revenue or profit. So the point is whether the farm produces more and that too efficiently. Whether the fish is sold or not or sold to the farmers or in urban areas or consumed in-house does not impact productivity and efficiency.
Hence (B) is not correct.

"Fish farms" are called "fish farms", not "farms".
"Farms" implies crop farms. If they are another kind of farms, you need to specify.

In any case, even if they do have fish farms already, this could be something additional they are doing.

Yes indeed, I had a great week! Thank you! Hope you had a productive one!

The argument mentions 'arid region reliant on irrigation.' So it looks like we are taking about a desert region. If the heat reduces at the farm, the need for irrigation will reduce too since water will not evaporate too quickly.

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja,

I found option B really interesting, even though the stats they question is easy.

Why do I think option B is right?

We are talking about increasing the total production of the farm.

Hence if the "fish" from the pond is saleable, can't we say that the farm now has one more product to sell?
Would not "saleable fish" add to the number of products the farm is selling?

In this way, we can say, that total production is increasing. Or, in other words, we can say, with this new approach, farm is now producing one more product in addition to the vegetables it is producing.

Also I have a very very strange doubt - we know fish farms exists - then why is "fish" as a product in additional to "vegetables" is not considered a viable product?
Should our understanding of "farms" be limited to "plant" based farms here in this argument?

I understand the official reason to reject choice B, but could you please weigh in here and let me know where am I making mistake?

Regards.

KarishmaB
I hope that you are having a wonderful week.
The part of the argument that I was a bit thrown off by was the last part "and the ponds and the accompanying vegetation should help reduce the heat in the area of the farms."
How does this tie into profitability and efficiency?

Many thanks

Thank you so much

Would you say that this is an unstated assumption or just background information that you should know? For some reason, I did not connect the dots here when initially reading it. Thank you again.

How much time shall one spend for this question ? Is 1min30 good ? What time would an "expert" spend on this question ? Thanks !!

 

­1:30 is good.

I think some "experts" would answer this question in 1:15 if they were seeking to answer it quickly, but 1:30 is still good.

­It's not an unstated assumption. It's a logical conclusion about the scenario that we can arrive at using the information presented. So, it's background information.­